pointer

Mockery? What was I mocking, shiloh? I said that the verse you provided did not support your definition of "flesh." You responded with "black is white too." It was mocking answer meant to belittle my response. Please answer the question. What was there about your response to belittle? Not at all. That is not a reason. For the third time, what is there to belittle about that?

Mockery? What was I mocking, shiloh? I said that the verse you provided did not support your definition of "flesh." You responded with "black is white too." It was mocking answer meant to belittle my response. Please answer the question. What was there about your response to belittle?

Mockery? What was I mocking, shiloh?

'If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.' Phil 3:4-6 NIV That has does not support your definition. Black is white, too. I did.

Is that the catholic church?

'If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.' Phil 3:4-6 NIV That has does not support your definition. Black is white, too.

'If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.' Phil 3:4-6 NIV

No, it is a matter of what you are putting your confidence in. Paul begins by saying that he does not put confidence in the flesh or any of his worly accomplishments, and that those things junk that he may know Christ. That is different than acsetism which despises the flesh altogether. Not so. 'The flesh' means all of the deceits of the world.

No, he only considered them rubbish in comparison to knowing Christ. He considered them rubbish in order to gain Christ. That is the whole point. It isn't. As many, many Christian preachers have observed for centuries, it is not a comparison, but an exchange. You either have the flesh, or you have Christ. That is not difficult to see.

Who decides what is greater? We call that circular argument. I know exactly what I'm talking about, thank you. And the NIV is not the world's runaway best-seller for nothing. Law brings wrath! Did you hear that time?

Substance? False witness is what should concern people.

Jesus said in Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Do you hate you parents? I assume not...he is making a comparitive statement here just like the verse we are discussing with Paul comparing our righteous works to the knowledge of the Lord's righteousness. yes there are universally accepted issues of morality. But how many tribes of the earth think adultery is permissable? How many people realize that even envy (covetousness) is a sin? There is more to God's instruction that a few general "biggies" I was pointing out what you ignored and since you don't own those words, I'll do it whenever you add emphasis on the wrong words sheesh...talk about arrogant? . You'd get banned from a real debate.

No, he only considered them rubbish in comparison to knowing Christ. He considered them rubbish in order to gain Christ. That is the whole point.

The key is the first part, which states that our sins were forgiven. Who decides what is key? This is a very strange sort of translating principle. Proper translation uses words that are actually used, and does not change them because they suit a pre-determined interpretation. 'Law brings wrath.' Rom 4:1 NIV Did the others not sin?

Quite so. It is true that Paul considered his advantages, as supposed, that derived from his Jewish heritage and culture were rubbish, though. Cain needed no instruction to know that murder was wrong. The antediluvians needed no instruction to know that adultery and rape were wrong. The Sodomites needed no instruction to know that sodomy was wrong. No-one at all needs instruction to know that theft is wrong. A baby, made in God's image, knows that. Please do not add emphasis or otherwise tamper with my quotes in future, yod. It is arrogance and misrepresentation imv, which is a form of theft. Thank you for your co-operation.

Indeed. No amount of casuistry can change that. 'He forgave us all our sins, having cancelled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.' Col 2:13-15 NIV In that case, they are doomed to failure. Moses was not allowed into the promised land. Otoh Abraham, who knew no Mosaic Law, is the father of those who are saved through faith.

Perhaps a dwarf who saved a cult. Pointer with comments like this, you will never sway a person to your beliefs. I don't think I need to. Pointer do you believe in Predestination? I believe in correct Engish usage. What you don't understand what Predestination is? No idea. Is it a new sort of fizzy drink, a musical band, or a make of refrigerator? I understand what predestination is. But you didn't ask about that.

Like the whole Jerusalem church, Paul taught that circumcision was unnecessary, so whatever he did, or said, to keep the Jews happy, he was certainly no Jew. That we do not know. Moreover, even if Paul made the vow after conversion, he may have made it in order to persuade Jews that such things were not forbidden, to be 'all things to all men'. Or, the vow may not have been a Nazirite one, but an entirely personal one, as was the habit of some Jews. Nothing at all can be reliably adduced from this event. 'Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.' 1 Cor 9:19-23 NIV To whom? Not so. The word used is 'dogmasin' (decrees, rules), as used in Ephesians 2:15. I don't need to. The law that decrees loving is abolished. One cannot ever understand Christianity while one does not understand that.

Perhaps a dwarf who saved a cult. Pointer with comments like this, you will never sway a person to your beliefs. I don't think I need to. Pointer do you believe in Predestination? I believe in correct Engish usage.

But was St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88) Linus' successor?

Perhaps a dwarf who saved a cult. Pointer with comments like this, you will never sway a person to your beliefs. I don't think I need to.

There are such documents? Do tell me where I can inspect them. There are, it is claimed, 'bishops and priests' all over the world who can trace their valid lines back to the apostles themselves. Perhaps you, anyone at all, could provide details, along with facsimiles of personal documentation supported with continuous records of reliably witnessed signatures originating with those of apostles. Over a period of several decades, my requests for these evidences to Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have met with no positive response. A 'back-dated' list is of no value, and neither is a mere suggestion to 'go and study it for yourself', which only raises the suspicion that there is nothing to study. It is a dreadful indictment of the human race that so many are obedient to charlatans, which is exactly what these 'bishops and priests' must be if this evidence cannot be inspected by anyone. It would appear, from the silence, that it is admitted that the RCC is a total figment. That is a ridiculous statement, pointer. The unbroken chain of popes since Peter, who was apointed by Christ Himself: # St. Peter (32-67) # St. Linus (67-76) # St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88) # St. Clement I (88-97) # St. Evaristus (97-105) # St. Alexander I (105-115) # St. Sixtus I (115-125) -- also called Xystus I # St. Telesphorus (125-136) # St. Hyginus (136-140) # St. Pius I (140-155) # St. Anicetus (155-166) # St. Soter (166-175) # St. Eleutherius (175-189) # St. Victor I (189-199) # St. Zephyrinus (199-217) # St. Callistus I (217-22) # St. Urban I (222-30) # St. Pontain (230-35) # St. Anterus (235-36) # St. Fabian (236-50) # St. Cornelius (251-53) # St. Lucius I (253-54) # St. Stephen I (254-257) # St. Sixtus II (257-258) # St. Dionysius (260-268) # St. Felix I (269-274) # St. Eutychian (275-283) # St. Caius (283-296) -- also called Gaius # St. Marcellinus (296-304) # St. Marcellus I (308-309) # St. Eusebius (309 or 310) # St. Miltiades (311-14) # St. Sylvester I (314-35) # St. Marcus (336) # St. Julius I (337-52) # Liberius (352-66) # St. Damasus I (366-83) # St. Siricius (384-99) # St. Anastasius I (399-401) # St. Innocent I (401-17) # St. Zosimus (417-18) # St. Boniface I (418-22) # St. Celestine I (422-32) # St. Sixtus III (432-40) # St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61) # St. Hilarius (461-68) # St. Simplicius (468-83) # St. Felix III (II) (483-92) # St. Gelasius I (492-96) # Anastasius II (496-98) # St. Symmachus (498-514) # St. Hormisdas (514-23) # St. John I (523-26) # St. Felix IV (III) (526-30) # Boniface II (530-32) # John II (533-35) # St. Agapetus I (535-36) -- also called Agapitus I # St. Silverius (536-37) # Vigilius (537-55) # Pelagius I (556-61) # John III (561-74) # Benedict I (575-79) # Pelagius II (579-90) # St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604) # Sabinian (604-606) # Boniface III (607) # St. Boniface IV (608-15) # St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18) # Boniface V (619-25) # Honorius I (625-38) # Severinus (640) # John IV (640-42) # Theodore I (642-49) # St. Martin I (649-55) # St. Eugene I (655-57) # St. Vitalian (657-72) # Adeodatus (II) (672-76) # Donus (676-78) # St. Agatho (678-81) # St. Leo II (682-83) # St. Benedict II (684-85) # John V (685-86) # Conon (686-87) # St. Sergius I (687-701) # John VI (701-05) # John VII (705-07) # Sisinnius (708) # Constantine (708-15) # St. Gregory II (715-31) # St. Gregory III (731-41) # St. Zachary (741-52) Stephen II (752) -- Omitted from many lists (including the Vatican's) because he died before being consecrated. # Stephen III (752-57) # St. Paul I (757-67) # Stephen IV (767-72) # Adrian I (772-95) # St. Leo III (795-816) # Stephen V (816-17) # St. Paschal I (817-24) # Eugene II (824-27) # Valentine (827) # Gregory IV (827-44) # Sergius II (844-47) # St. Leo IV (847-55) # Benedict III (855-58) # St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67) # Adrian II (867-72) # John VIII (872-82) # Marinus I (882-84) # St. Adrian III (884-85) # Stephen VI (885-91) # Formosus (891-96) # Boniface VI (896) # Stephen VII (896-97) # Romanus (897) # Theodore II (897) # John IX (898-900) # Benedict IV (900-03) # Leo V (903) # Sergius III (904-11) # Anastasius III (911-13) # Lando (913-14) # John X (914-28) # Leo VI (928) # Stephen VIII (929-31) # John XI (931-35) # Leo VII (936-39) # Stephen IX (939-42) # Marinus II (942-46) # Agapetus II (946-55) # John XII (955-63) # Leo VIII (963-64) # Benedict V (964) # John XIII (965-72) # Benedict VI (973-74) # Benedict VII (974-83) # John XIV (983-84) # John XV (985-96) # Gregory V (996-99) # Sylvester II (999-1003) # John XVII (1003) # John XVIII (1003-09) # Sergius IV (1009-12) # Benedict VIII (1012-24) # John XIX (1024-32) # Benedict IX (1032-45) # Sylvester III (1045) -- Considered by some to be an antipope # Benedict IX (1045) # Gregory VI (1045-46) # Clement II (1046-47) # Benedict IX (1047-48) # Damasus II (1048) # St. Leo IX (1049-54) # Victor II (1055-57) # Stephen X (1057-58) # Nicholas II (1058-61) # Alexander II (1061-73) # St. Gregory VII (1073-85) # Blessed Victor III (1086-87) # Blessed Urban II (1088-99) # Paschal II (1099-1118) # Gelasius II (1118-19) # Callistus II (1119-24) # Honorius II (1124-30) # Innocent II (1130-43) # Celestine II (1143-44) # Lucius II (1144-45) # Blessed Eugene III (1145-53) # Anastasius IV (1153-54) # Adrian IV (1154-59) # Alexander III (1159-81) # Lucius III (1181-85) # Urban III (1185-87) # Gregory VIII (1187) # Clement III (1187-91) # Celestine III (1191-98) # Innocent III (1198-1216) # Honorius III (1216-27) # Gregory IX (1227-41) # Celestine IV (1241) # Innocent IV (1243-54) # Alexander IV (1254-61) # Urban IV (1261-64) # Clement IV (1265-68) # Blessed Gregory X (1271-76) # Blessed Innocent V (1276) # Adrian V (1276) # John XXI (1276-77) # Nicholas III (1277-80) # Martin IV (1281-85) # Honorius IV (1285-87) # Nicholas IV (1288-92) # St. Celestine V (1294) # Boniface VIII (1294-1303) # Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04) # Clement V (1305-14) # John XXII (1316-34) # Benedict XII (1334-42) # Clement VI (1342-52) # Innocent VI (1352-62) # Blessed Urban V (1362-70) # Gregory XI (1370-78) # Urban VI (1378-89) # Boniface IX (1389-1404) # Innocent VII (1404-06) # Gregory XII (1406-15) # Martin V (1417-31) # Eugene IV (1431-47) # Nicholas V (1447-55) # Callistus III (1455-58) # Pius II (1458-64) # Paul II (1464-71) # Sixtus IV (1471-84) # Innocent VIII (1484-92) # Alexander VI (1492-1503) # Pius III (1503) # Julius II (1503-13) # Leo X (1513-21) # Adrian VI (1522-23) # Clement VII (1523-34) # Paul III (1534-49) # Julius III (1550-55) # Marcellus II (1555) # Paul IV (1555-59) # Pius IV (1559-65) # St. Pius V (1566-72) # Gregory XIII (1572-85) # Sixtus V (1585-90) # Urban VII (1590) # Gregory XIV (1590-91) # Innocent IX (1591) # Clement VIII (1592-1605) # Leo XI (1605) # Paul V (1605-21) # Gregory XV (1621-23) # Urban VIII (1623-44) # Innocent X (1644-55) # Alexander VII (1655-67) # Clement IX (1667-69) # Clement X (1670-76) # Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89) # Alexander VIII (1689-91) # Innocent XII (1691-1700) # Clement XI (1700-21) # Innocent XIII (1721-24) # Benedict XIII (1724-30) # Clement XII (1730-40) # Benedict XIV (1740-58) # Clement XIII (1758-69) # Clement XIV (1769-74) # Pius VI (1775-99) # Pius VII (1800-23) # Leo XII (1823-29) # Pius VIII (1829-30) # Gregory XVI (1831-46) # Blessed Pius IX (1846-78) # Leo XIII (1878-1903) # St. Pius X (1903-14) # Benedict XV (1914-22) # Pius XI (1922-39) # Pius XII (1939-58) # Blessed John XXIII (1958-63) # Paul VI (1963-78) # John Paul I (1978) # John Paul II (1978-2005) # Benedict XVI (2005-) "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." And they will not! Peace, Fiosh That no doubt looks very impressive, to a Peruvian peasant. But not to others.

Paul's 'Jewish' actions were entirely to make it impossible for Jews to accuse him or Timothy of law breaking, which would have unnecessarily prevented them from preaching the gospel. His Nazirite vow was presumably taken before his conversion, and there is no evidence whatever that Paul celebrated any Jewish festival. He may well have wanted to have been in Jerusalem when there were festivals, as it gave him enormous scope due to Jews from all over the diaspora being present at these times. To find out what Paul really thought, see this: 'If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless. But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.' Phil 3:4-9 NIV How is it that you have taken this long to object? What else can Colossians refer to but Mosaic Law?

Can you find support for these ideas? I have done.

Paul wrote otherwise. Of course it is. But before the cross, there was insufficient motivation to love. The converted person lives by love, not 'by numbers', running around after laws, many of which are now quite ridiculous and impractical anyway.